> "peeling" off the very people Carrol always talks about: they kinda
> sorta already get it, they're just looking for the words and theories
> to help them understand.
Exactly! "Words and theories." I think this sums up exactly what's needed.
In 1960 and for years thereafter, right-wingers would hand their conservative but confused friends copies of Conscience of A Conservative. It was a clear and uncompromising summation of how (what was then a far-) rightist understood the political world: Neither dumbed-down nor written for academics; explicitly acknowledging that its ideas were presently unpopular; not a series of policy proposals but an explanation of *why* certain policies would reflect the true and the good. Published under Goldwater's name but written by a reactionary Catholic intellectual named Brent Bozell, brother-in-law to William F. Buckley.
There's nothing like that on the left, either the liberal left or the radical left. Everything seems to fall into one of the following categories: activistism; theoretical abstractions; wonkish policy proposals; braindead partisan hackery. (Of course, there are also lots of great books on specific subjects, including in some of the above-mentioned categories.)
Actually, Shag, I'm not sure that Carrol would agree that "word and theories" are what's needed - but I think you're right.
SA